Jump to content

I Know This Has Probably Been Done To Death...


Recommended Posts

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

O.K. Firstly I see more staffy type and working dog type dogs in rescue that never get out the other side and into a new home than I see other cross breeds that have been purposely bred. I also see pure breed rescue is flourishing. In my two breeds Beagle and Maremma there is a never ending supply of dogs for Beagle and Maremma rescue and there are hundreds of specific breed rescue groups all over the country. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Plus many purebreds are marketed as non shedding, less prone to causing allergies and child friendly. Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on that either. There are good and bad breeders in any group and it is just as difficult to find a registered purebred breeder who is doing it all right as it is to find a cross bred breeder who has it all covered. The marketing for purebred dogs tells us that they all health tested - well guess what ? Most registered breeders dont and whats more the anti marketing of purebred dogs tells us that many of them are actually selected for characteristics that cause their quality of life to be low quality and for them to suffer because of it. These days the breeders don't have to do much work on telling the general public the benefits of cross breds because the RSPCA and the AVA and the state universities are right out there about it.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Hit google and ask for non shedding dogs and its purebreds that come up - so is it possible to have a non shedding purebred but not a non shedding cross bred? <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">What Im trying to say is that grown up people make their decisions on purchasing anything based on their own variables and suggesting that every one should only want registered purebreds is equivalent to telling me that everyone should only want a rescue dog.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">So when we see cross bred dogs advertised and people buying them they have as much right to determine that suits them better than what you would choose. The fact that there are choices is a good thing and people who won dogs which are not purebred or not registered with a kennel club as purebreds can still be fantastic owners and the dogs make great pets.Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on puppy farming and if there weren't so many people telling the world how great their cross bred puppies were people would stop buying them.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Both sides are capable of spreading crap about what they see as the best and real world but people buy dogs of any type because they are able to make their own choices - some will like purebreds others wont care if they are purebred or not. There is just as much argument - if not more that the marketing of purebreds and the pressure on breeders to only breed a litter or two a year and God forbid for the pet market has helped puppy farmers of both registered purebred breeders and cross bred breeders. Its supply and demand. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">

Steve a great deal of what you've said I don't disagree with. There's no argument wotrth having here. We bascially agree that nooone has a monopoly on poor breeding. And I've never once suggested that purebreeders have got it all covered form an ethics or marketing point of view. So we're agreed on that too.

There are only three other issues which I find sooo problematic. Sorry again for the previous long posts so this time I'll try and be brief.

Cross breeders in my experience while using purebreed breeding 'stock' (term used deliberately) and doing some purebreeding the vast majority breed and market mainly cross-breeds. But we can agree to disagree on that.

Secondly, while some purebreeders breed unethically (bradycephalic creeds as one example) and market falsely, in my experience the trophy belongs to the cross-breed puppy farmers - only heard last week of a complete corgi cross litter euth'd after legs would not support bodies.

Lastly, noone is addressing the issue of cross false marketing of cross-breeds, the blurring of lines between responsible and irresponsible mass cross-breeders, the naming of cross-breeds as if they are purebreeds with cute marketing terms (cavoodle etc) instead of describing as their true cross and generally misleading the general public with false information (leading the general public to beleive its a 'breed' when its a cross-breed). At least with ANKC registered breeds there are breed standards to refer to in the main. Maybe with the exception of the cobberdog its an absolute free-for-all out there in cross breed land - or is it that lack of breeder distinction again?

Anyway, hungry mouths to feed here. Good to see we aren't really that far apart.

ETA Steve's quote above for clarity.

Edited by westiemum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Makes perfect sense to me.

Its not where it comes from. Its the purpose behind its existing at all...what qualities were found in its ancestors that people (responded to) took responsibility for extending into the future.

Doesn't matter where it came from or who bred it, as long as there was purpose to it, That served the needs of some person who could recognize THIS dog can add value to MY purpose better than any other.

But Reliably good dogs can only keep happening or be found if breeders and their buyers understand a shared purpose, and their own abilities to respond to it effectively.

That they can or will TAKE responsibility for their purpose. To the best of their ability in whatever conditions they have to work with.

Not hand responsibility to a group identity with the expectation that environment will meet any conditions thrown in your way with its own.

The 'environment' the dog or its breeder comes from has little to do with its quality, except for how supportive it is of the breeders and their response to the purpose. How and if a breeders response to his purpose is rewarded.

Accidents will happen. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Life ISN'T predictable. Predictable responses won't always work. If life throws me an accident thats better than what I've come to expect, be buggered if I'll throw it away because I don't approve of where it comes from, or prevent a repeat because it doesn't represent my predictably standard environment.

An environment that only supports predictable standards would mean only standard responses are accepted or rewarded there. That limits the possibilities of my purpose and of my dogs. No change, only reduction.

Teach purpose for dogs and breeding, show anyone how to respond to it, no matter where they exist NOW, and the purpose and responses of those who don't offer anything real will be exposed with recognition of them. There won't be rewards for people to offer so little. Teach people to EXPECT more by giving it and share how.

But I forget, It has to be recognized 1st. Thats not the standard response. And my purpose isn't the standard. Its a good dog by the standards "I" have come to expect. Not one predicted or dictated by an environment I'm restricted to, if there any reward to be got.

If my purpose has no value to anyone but myself theres no reward beyond my own dog, so its going to be hard to even find him.

As long as we keep referencing a K.C environment for 'best practice' in opposition to any alternative, we ensure the rewards for a good breeder or a good dog depend on the environment they come from and we won't be rewarding effective purpose and responses from any because we aren't focusing on them.

Only on standardizing the k.C environment to meet all environmental conditions and demands thrown its way.

Trying to counter act the unpredictability of environmental conditions through an environment so predictable its no longer there. An Environment can't be static and support response.

Edited by moosmum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Makes perfect sense to me.

Its not where it comes from. Its the purpose behind its existing at all...what qualities were found in its ancestors that people (responded to) took responsibility for extending into the future.

Doesn't matter where it came from or who bred it, as long as there was purpose to it, That served the needs of some person who could recognize THIS dog can add value to MY purpose better than any other.

But Reliably good dogs can only keep happening or be found if breeders and their buyers understand a shared purpose, and their own abilities to respond to it effectively.

That they can or will TAKE responsibility for their purpose. To the best of their ability in whatever conditions they have to work with.

Not hand responsibility to a group identity with the expectation that environment will meet any conditions thrown in your way with its own.

The 'environment' the dog or its breeder comes from has little to do with its quality, except for how supportive it is of the breeders and their response to the purpose. How and if a breeders response to his purpose is rewarded.

Accidents will happen. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Life ISN'T predictable. Predictable responses won't always work. If Life throws me an accident thats better than what I've come to expect, be buggered if I'll throw it away because I don't approve of where it comes from, or prevent a repeat because it doesn't represent my predictably standard environment.

An environment that only supports predictable standards would mean only standard responses are accepted or rewarded there. That limits the possibilities of my purpose and of my dogs. No change, only reduction.

Teach purpose for dogs and breeding, show anyone how to respond to it, no matter where they exist NOW, and the purpose and responses of those who don't offer anything real will be exposed with recognition of them. There won't be rewards for people to offer so little. Teach people to EXPECT more by giving it and share how.

But I forget, It has to be recognized 1st. Thats not the standard response. And my purpose isn't the standard. Its a good dog by the standards "I" have come to expect. Not one predicted or dictated by an environment I'm restricted to, if there any reward to be got.

If my purpose has no value to anyone but myself theres no reward beyond my own dog, so its going to be hard to even find him.

As long as we keep referencing a K.C environment for 'best practice' in opposition to any alternative, we ensure the rewards for a good breeder or a good dog depend on the environment they come from and we won't be rewarding effective purpose and responses from any because we aren't focusing on them.

Only on standardizing the k.C environment to meet all environmental conditions and demands thrown its way.

Trying to counter act the unpredictability of environmental conditions through an environment so predictable its no longer there. An Environment can't be static and support response.

Your speaking my language!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't just demand people conform to the environment we want with out opposing whats there, and the possibilities it contains.

We can only demonstrate possibilities through our own responses, and hope people can recognize the value. So we create an expectation thats how it should be.

At least til our conditions change or we find an even better response or both. But If we can only accept a standardized environment, and expect a standard response, we won't be able to cope with change or respond to it effectively.

If Oodle crosses are popular, its because people value what they offer to their purpose and expectations better than alternatives. If you want to change that, offer more and see that its familiar enough people can recognize it when they see it.

Edited by moosmum
Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cav/poodle crosses are quite popular. I think people do research them. They want a small, family-friendly dog with low-no shedding, cute and cuddly, easy to manage behaviourally, not too active. They hunt around on the net and get recommendations from people that already have one. They are often very happy with their cav mix, so they tell others they have a great dog, and they look for one as well. That's how anything gets popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs.

Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh:

I don't disagree that a dog's worth should be judged to some extent on its function but with the oodly dogs, function is an unknown. They can't be claimed to be hypoallergenic, they can't be claimed to be non-shedding, they can't be claimed to be good family pets, and really, they can't be claimed to be anything because it's all rolls of the dice. Comparing an oodly dog to.. a greyhound: The greyhound will be a big dog, probably weighing between 25-35kg. It will have a smooth, short coat that sheds fairly minimally. It will have most, if not all, the traits of a sighthound. When you breed two greyhounds together, you know what the basic template will be. On the other hand, the lab x poodle could be a smallish dog, it could be a medium dog, it could be quite a large dog, its coat could be one of many things. It's impossible to predict which traits from which breed will end up in each puppy and because of that, you can't say it's good for [X] function (such as non-shedding pet) because it's an unknown.

An update for anyone interested, regarding the BIL's lab x poodle.. Yesterday, it was confirmed that its other knee has now gone. Below is a quote taken from the breeder's website:

[breeder name removed] puppies have sound health with a hybrid vigor.

I guess that sound health with hybrid vigor doesn't include hips or knees. Their dog will likely be crippled with arthritis before it even gets close to being an old dog. Great family pet, right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs.

Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are.

What part of more than one code of practice did you not get?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh:

I don't disagree that a dog's worth should be judged to some extent on its function but with the oodly dogs, function is an unknown. They can't be claimed to be hypoallergenic, they can't be claimed to be non-shedding, they can't be claimed to be good family pets, and really, they can't be claimed to be anything because it's all rolls of the dice. Comparing an oodly dog to.. a greyhound: The greyhound will be a big dog, probably weighing between 25-35kg. It will have a smooth, short coat that sheds fairly minimally. It will have most, if not all, the traits of a sighthound. When you breed two greyhounds together, you know what the basic template will be. On the other hand, the lab x poodle could be a smallish dog, it could be a medium dog, it could be quite a large dog, its coat could be one of many things. It's impossible to predict which traits from which breed will end up in each puppy and because of that, you can't say it's good for [X] function (such as non-shedding pet) because it's an unknown.

An update for anyone interested, regarding the BIL's lab x poodle.. Yesterday, it was confirmed that its other knee has now gone. Below is a quote taken from the breeder's website:

[breeder name removed] puppies have sound health with a hybrid vigor.

I guess that sound health with hybrid vigor doesn't include hips or knees. Their dog will likely be crippled with arthritis before it even gets close to being an old dog. Great family pet, right there.

Cos hybrid vigour is about species not breeds. Actually, I think it was originally about peas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Bushriver, but while purebred registered breeders aren't regulated either, at least the many are registered (unlike cross-breeders and BYBers) , many of them show to improve the breed and they adhere to a code of ethics and don't set up mass breeding facilities to mislead and pander to a gullible public and make a quick buck at the expense of the breeding dogs they use. While of course there are not so good purebreed breeders around, at least the majority put dog welfare and breed betterment first and at least the public can view parents and research the breeder in a transparent way - which can't be said for these cross-breed puppy farmers.

The puppy farm I used to 'visit' and where my two male westies came from would not give out its address before a visit and operated with the utmost secrecy. You had to travel two hours before being given a map at a servo in the local town for final directions. And the place was scary, down a long road, hidden from main view. And the breeders there thought it was terribly funny that their breeding dogs never set foot on grass and proudly showed run after run of unsocialised dogs in concrete cages. Hundreds of them. You really have to visit these places to know what 'hell on earth' looks like.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs..

I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs.

Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are.

What part of more than one code of practice did you not get?

I got it Sheridan but having to abide by that code of practice as a breeder is not having to be regulated by anything pertaining to breeding dogs. Therefore stating that registered breeders in Victoria who own less than 10 dogs are regulated by a code is smoke and mirrors because those who are not Vicdogs and breed dogs have more regulation on them and the code for the private keeping of dogs can hardly be counted as regulated in the sense it was being discussed in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maddy, you're not telling me anything new or different, and I know you're not trying too. I'm the personality type that needs consistency. In the cat world I've discpvered that a moggy is most acceptable... I'm about to buy two purebred Burmese when I have the choice of thousands of moggies. In having said that, it is my personality type. I like precision. I like the expected. I like to know exactly what I'm getting. That's me.

However, back to the point of oodles vs purebreds. All in all, a dog is a dog as a cat is a cat. Most oodles are not walking disasters, and neither are most purebreds. In the end it comes down to the fact that it is just a dog and people just want a dog.

It's also easier to buy a cross bred dog. This bizarre situation we now have where 'responsible' means that a breeder has to put the purchaser through the 5th degree is crap. Most people just want to buy a dog. Most people are responsible enough to be able to do this without being treated like they are idiots.

Every time I read ethical and breeder in one sentence I want to feckin scream. We've made it such an ordeal. We've made it so hard for ourselves.

Most people still just want a dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Anne I concur.

My post was not meaning to compare an oodle to any other dog, not judge a dog against another dog. But o judge the dog in front of me. Just because I can't refer to a written standard for the curly haired mutt in front of me doesn't mean I can't assess it as having a pleasant nature, a sound balanced body type with apparently good structure. No apparent major faults of body or mind. A functional dog, for a dogs sake.

What the pure breed thing has led us to is the inability to recognise good outside of the standard, so all we get is standard, or the best shot at standard. I guess that's ok if you think all we should ever have is pure breeds judged to written standards.

However, I see more benefit in say for example, farmer John is out in his sheep yards and farmer bob drives in. Bob says hey john I have just gotten my hands on the best yard dog I've ever had. From bobs ute jumps a dog that looks a bit like a chihuahua crosses with a cocker spaniel. John has a giggle, but trusts his mate bob, and gets some sheep into the yard and puts the dog to work. Turns out it's the best yard sheepdog he's ever seen too. So farmer John arranges to put chispaniel over Molly his prized kelpie mix next season. Well wouldn't you know it, Molly throws some funny looking pups, but several of them turn out to be champion yard dog, and so the story or the bobjohn sheepdog begins. But because bob & John arent bound by standards, anytime some other dog with attributes they desire comes along, they can throw the dice and see if their gamble pays off. This is what I mean when saying we've lost the ability to look at a dog and assess it for what it is, in relation to what it can or can't bring to dogs generally.

It also makes me laught how pure breed folks will fight passionately about what breeds and types went in to developing their breed, but poo all over any mixed breed dog or breed in development

Edited by Gruf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh:

I don't disagree that a dog's worth should be judged to some extent on its function but with the oodly dogs, function is an unknown. They can't be claimed to be hypoallergenic, they can't be claimed to be non-shedding, they can't be claimed to be good family pets, and really, they can't be claimed to be anything because it's all rolls of the dice. Comparing an oodly dog to.. a greyhound: The greyhound will be a big dog, probably weighing between 25-35kg. It will have a smooth, short coat that sheds fairly minimally. It will have most, if not all, the traits of a sighthound. When you breed two greyhounds together, you know what the basic template will be. On the other hand, the lab x poodle could be a smallish dog, it could be a medium dog, it could be quite a large dog, its coat could be one of many things. It's impossible to predict which traits from which breed will end up in each puppy and because of that, you can't say it's good for [X] function (such as non-shedding pet) because it's an unknown.

An update for anyone interested, regarding the BIL's lab x poodle.. Yesterday, it was confirmed that its other knee has now gone. Below is a quote taken from the breeder's website:

[breeder name removed] puppies have sound health with a hybrid vigor.

I guess that sound health with hybrid vigor doesn't include hips or knees. Their dog will likely be crippled with arthritis before it even gets close to being an old dog. Great family pet, right there.

Cos hybrid vigour is about species not breeds. Actually, I think it was originally about peas.

Are 'peas' not a single 'genus?' Like 'canid?'

At any rate, I don't think the physical laws of genetics alter depending on species.

Edited by moosmum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh:

I don't disagree that a dog's worth should be judged to some extent on its function but with the oodly dogs, function is an unknown. They can't be claimed to be hypoallergenic, they can't be claimed to be non-shedding, they can't be claimed to be good family pets, and really, they can't be claimed to be anything because it's all rolls of the dice. Comparing an oodly dog to.. a greyhound: The greyhound will be a big dog, probably weighing between 25-35kg. It will have a smooth, short coat that sheds fairly minimally. It will have most, if not all, the traits of a sighthound. When you breed two greyhounds together, you know what the basic template will be. On the other hand, the lab x poodle could be a smallish dog, it could be a medium dog, it could be quite a large dog, its coat could be one of many things. It's impossible to predict which traits from which breed will end up in each puppy and because of that, you can't say it's good for [X] function (such as non-shedding pet) because it's an unknown.

An update for anyone interested, regarding the BIL's lab x poodle.. Yesterday, it was confirmed that its other knee has now gone. Below is a quote taken from the breeder's website:

[breeder name removed] puppies have sound health with a hybrid vigor.

I guess that sound health with hybrid vigor doesn't include hips or knees. Their dog will likely be crippled with arthritis before it even gets close to being an old dog. Great family pet, right there.

Cos hybrid vigour is about species not breeds. Actually, I think it was originally about peas.

Oh, I know. And the BIL and SIL are both educated people who should also know better. Arguably, if you cross two unrelated breeds (with no coinciding genetic health issues), you would probably end up with a fairly robust dog, provided body types were fairly similar, and also assuming it is a first generation cross. I think the genetics issue is where people get confused. Multi-generational sounds like a selling point until you consider that recessive genes can be doubled up on in multi-gen mixes and what you're actually doing is introducing the possibility of two sets of heritable diseases, instead of just the one.

Maddy, you're not telling me anything new or different, and I know you're not trying too. I'm the personality type that needs consistency. In the cat world I've discpvered that a moggy is most acceptable... I'm about to buy two purebred Burmese when I have the choice of thousands of moggies. In having said that, it is my personality type. I like precision. I like the expected. I like to know exactly what I'm getting. That's me.

However, back to the point of oodles vs purebreds. All in all, a dog is a dog as a cat is a cat. Most oodles are not walking disasters, and neither are most purebreds. In the end it comes down to the fact that it is just a dog and people just want a dog.

It's also easier to buy a cross bred dog. This bizarre situation we now have where 'responsible' means that a breeder has to put the purchaser through the 5th degree is crap. Most people just want to buy a dog. Most people are responsible enough to be able to do this without being treated like they are idiots.

Every time I read ethical and breeder in one sentence I want to feckin scream. We've made it such an ordeal. We've made it so hard for ourselves.

Most people still just want a dog.

Oh, I'd absolutely agree with you there. After losing Bosley- a very loved, spoiled, cared for, inside dog- we discussed future dogs and made some decisions: for me, a borzoi (for a number of reasons) and I contacted a breeder to put ourselves on a waiting list. Breeder replied and I think we're on the waiting list for mid next year, no worries. Then, after further discussion with the OH, we (he) decided that we (he) also needed another whippet. The OH doesn't understand the dog world all that much so I looked for breeders who had litters planned and finally narrowed it down to one. I wrote them an email outlining our family, our dogs, included a few photos, tried to make sure that everything a breeder might want to know would be covered, including the fact that we were interstate (not many whippet breeders down here). A lot of time and thought went into that email, we're certainly not first time dog owners and I feel that we could offer a puppy a really great home. But they couldn't even be f***ed to send us an email with something like "We don't like you, no puppy". Just silence. We weren't even worth a reply.

I'm willing to give the pedigreed dog world a whole lot of leeway because I want to be reasonably confident that the puppy is coming from a decent home but if I was the average person, I think it's more than likely that a BYB whippet breeder would've just scored themselves another customer. Yes, I get that people are busy and have lives outside breeding but if you can't find two minutes in three weeks to write a one line reply, you can't complain about losing people to BYB because the BYBer will find time to reply.

My post was not meaning to compare an oodle to any other dog, not judge a dog against another dog. But o judge the dog in front of me. Just because I can't refer to a written standard for the curly haired mutt in front of me doesn't mean I can't assess it as having a pleasant nature, a sound balanced body type with apparently good structure. No apparent major faults of body or mind. A functional dog, for a dogs sake.

You're missing the point- those things can't be determined until the dog is already in front of you. You could breed a litter of oodles and get HD all though them, scatty, awful temperaments, hair that sheds like a lab and terrible overall structure. Or it could go the other way. Whether or not they produce a dog that has the desired traits is entirely up to luck. The vast majority are not being "developed", they're just crossbreds being bred for money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think much of the problem is that we seem to value a dog for its breed or its pedigree or its breeder, rather than seeing the value in the dog itself. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I am for dogs, all dogs, no matter their breed, breeding, breeder.

I think generally we've lost the ability to appreciate a good dog for what it primarily is, a dog (rather than a breed or a pedigree etc)

I've seen superbly sound of mind and body mutts, and rubbish with an extensive pedigree. And vice versa.

A good dog is a good dog. A bad dog is a bad dog.

I see people call all oodles as rubbish, and all pedigrees as superior, for example.

Me, I'd rather say, well lets have a look at it and judge it as a dog first. Just because a mixed heritage dog can't be judged to an exacting written standard doesn't mean you can't judge it as a dog.

Ok I'm probably ranting on here......

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh:

I don't disagree that a dog's worth should be judged to some extent on its function but with the oodly dogs, function is an unknown. They can't be claimed to be hypoallergenic, they can't be claimed to be non-shedding, they can't be claimed to be good family pets, and really, they can't be claimed to be anything because it's all rolls of the dice. Comparing an oodly dog to.. a greyhound: The greyhound will be a big dog, probably weighing between 25-35kg. It will have a smooth, short coat that sheds fairly minimally. It will have most, if not all, the traits of a sighthound. When you breed two greyhounds together, you know what the basic template will be. On the other hand, the lab x poodle could be a smallish dog, it could be a medium dog, it could be quite a large dog, its coat could be one of many things. It's impossible to predict which traits from which breed will end up in each puppy and because of that, you can't say it's good for [X] function (such as non-shedding pet) because it's an unknown.

An update for anyone interested, regarding the BIL's lab x poodle.. Yesterday, it was confirmed that its other knee has now gone. Below is a quote taken from the breeder's website:

[breeder name removed] puppies have sound health with a hybrid vigor.

I guess that sound health with hybrid vigor doesn't include hips or knees. Their dog will likely be crippled with arthritis before it even gets close to being an old dog. Great family pet, right there.

Cos hybrid vigour is about species not breeds. Actually, I think it was originally about peas.

Oh, I know. And the BIL and SIL are both educated people who should also know better. Arguably, if you cross two unrelated breeds (with no coinciding genetic health issues), you would probably end up with a fairly robust dog, provided body types were fairly similar, and also assuming it is a first generation cross. I think the genetics issue is where people get confused. Multi-generational sounds like a selling point until you consider that recessive genes can be doubled up on in multi-gen mixes and what you're actually doing is introducing the possibility of two sets of heritable diseases, instead of just the one.

Maddy, you're not telling me anything new or different, and I know you're not trying too. I'm the personality type that needs consistency. In the cat world I've discpvered that a moggy is most acceptable... I'm about to buy two purebred Burmese when I have the choice of thousands of moggies. In having said that, it is my personality type. I like precision. I like the expected. I like to know exactly what I'm getting. That's me.

However, back to the point of oodles vs purebreds. All in all, a dog is a dog as a cat is a cat. Most oodles are not walking disasters, and neither are most purebreds. In the end it comes down to the fact that it is just a dog and people just want a dog.

It's also easier to buy a cross bred dog. This bizarre situation we now have where 'responsible' means that a breeder has to put the purchaser through the 5th degree is crap. Most people just want to buy a dog. Most people are responsible enough to be able to do this without being treated like they are idiots.

Every time I read ethical and breeder in one sentence I want to feckin scream. We've made it such an ordeal. We've made it so hard for ourselves.

Most people still just want a dog.

Oh, I'd absolutely agree with you there. After losing Bosley- a very loved, spoiled, cared for, inside dog- we discussed future dogs and made some decisions: for me, a borzoi (for a number of reasons) and I contacted a breeder to put ourselves on a waiting list. Breeder replied and I think we're on the waiting list for mid next year, no worries. Then, after further discussion with the OH, we (he) decided that we (he) also needed another whippet. The OH doesn't understand the dog world all that much so I looked for breeders who had litters planned and finally narrowed it down to one. I wrote them an email outlining our family, our dogs, included a few photos, tried to make sure that everything a breeder might want to know would be covered, including the fact that we were interstate (not many whippet breeders down here). A lot of time and thought went into that email, we're certainly not first time dog owners and I feel that we could offer a puppy a really great home. But they couldn't even be f***ed to send us an email with something like "We don't like you, no puppy". Just silence. We weren't even worth a reply.

I'm willing to give the pedigreed dog world a whole lot of leeway because I want to be reasonably confident that the puppy is coming from a decent home but if I was the average person, I think it's more than likely that a BYB whippet breeder would've just scored themselves another customer. Yes, I get that people are busy and have lives outside breeding but if you can't find two minutes in three weeks to write a one line reply, you can't complain about losing people to BYB because the BYBer will find time to reply.

My post was not meaning to compare an oodle to any other dog, not judge a dog against another dog. But o judge the dog in front of me. Just because I can't refer to a written standard for the curly haired mutt in front of me doesn't mean I can't assess it as having a pleasant nature, a sound balanced body type with apparently good structure. No apparent major faults of body or mind. A functional dog, for a dogs sake.

You're missing the point- those things can't be determined until the dog is already in front of you. You could breed a litter of oodles and get HD all though them, scatty, awful temperaments, hair that sheds like a lab and terrible overall structure. Or it could go the other way. Whether or not they produce a dog that has the desired traits is entirely up to luck. The vast majority are not being "developed", they're just crossbreds being bred for money.

No I get that point too. I'm not focusing on predictability because breeding for that is not good for dogs generally, in the long term. We breed for predictability because it's what we want. It's a dead end road for dogs though. Unless we just want a bunch of predictable generic dogs.

I understand that loads of people want that, but loads of other people want to roll the dice and take a gamble. That is after all how we got most of our predictable cookie cutter breeds in the first place.

The rise of oodles is no different and I'm not entirely sure it's trying to standardise varieties of them is a good road to go down. Well just end up with a new set of self limiting predictable cookie cutter breeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...